Thomas Massie Jokes He'd Like Ceasefire With Trump After Iran Rift
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
After President Donald Trump announced on Monday that Iran and Israel had agreed to a "complete and total ceasefire," a Republican congressman who was at odds with Trump over U.S. involvement in the conflict joked that he would also like a ceasefire with the president.
Newsweek reached out to the White House for comment via email on Monday.
The Context
Republican Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky skewered Trump after the president authorized U.S. strikes against Iranian nuclear sites without congressional approval.
Trump's decision to launch the strikes came after Israel sparked a war with Iran on June 13 with a series of missile strikes that decimated Iran's military chain-of-command and nuclear infrastructure. Israel's strikes threw a wrench into Iran-U.S. diplomatic efforts toward reaching a new nuclear deal.
On Saturday, the U.S. entered the conflict by dropping 14 Massive Ordinance Penetrator (MOP) bombs, known as "bunker buster" bombs, and more than two dozen Tomahawk cruise missiles at three Iranian nuclear sites. Trump administration officials said the strikes "obliterated" Iran's nuclear infrastructure, but the full extent of the damage is not known.
Representative Thomas Massie exits a meeting of the House Republican Conference in the U.S. Capitol on June 4.
Representative Thomas Massie exits a meeting of the House Republican Conference in the U.S. Capitol on June 4.
Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call via AP Images
What To Know
Trump on Monday evening announced that Iran and Israel had come to a ceasefire agreement that would go into effect early Tuesday, though the formal terms of the agreement have not been released.
CNN's Manu Raju asked Massie after the announcement whether Trump deserves credit for it, to which Massie replied that it's "too soon to say."
"There was another way to do this where you could still get credit, where you do it constitutionally," the Kentucky Republican said.
He then quipped: "I'd like a ceasefire between me and President Trump, if I can get the same deal after his bunker busters he dropped on me."
Massie has long been a thorn in Trump's side, but tensions between the two men ratcheted up this year, when Massie lambasted the Trump-backed "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" working its way through Congress and slammed Trump over his decision to go around lawmakers to bomb Iran.
Trump railed against Massie over the weekend, calling the Kentucky Republican a "simple-minded 'grandstander,'" a "pathetic LOSER" and a "BUM."
The president and his team have also made clear that they want Massie out of Congress.
"He should be a Democrat because he is more aligned with them than with the Republican Party," White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told Fox News on Monday.
Trump's senior political advisers, Tony Fabrizio and Chris LaCivita, also launched a political action committee (PAC) dedicated to unseating Massie, Axios reported.
The Kentucky lawmaker told CNN on Monday that he can hold his own against a Trump-backed Republican primary opponent.
Trump's "endorsement's worth about 10 points and I can sustain that," he told Raju.
This is a breaking news story. Updates to follow.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
12 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Democrat Jeffries Delays House Vote on Trump Tax Bill With Marathon Speech
House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries is blocking a final vote on Republicans' tax and spending package with a lengthy floor speech bashing the bill. The New Yorker is using his unlimited floor speech privileges to ensure Democratic criticisms of the bill air on popular morning news shows. He began speaking before 5 a.m. in remarks that have gone well beyond a speech expected to last an hour. The longer he talks, the more attention he is likely to draw.
Boston Globe
16 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Trump goes ‘woke' in report on antisemitism at Harvard
What the administration mainly offers in its finding, though, is a litany of sit-ins, walk-outs, and group letters organized by pro-Palestinian student groups — with remarkably little evidence of any intention to harass or discriminate against Jewish peers. Take, for example, the government's finding that 'Jewish and Israeli students at Harvard were repeatedly denied access to … libraries.' That sounds like an accusation of intentional discrimination. In fact, though, the only evidence for several of these 'denials of access' consists of Advertisement The answer is that the administration could classify that behavior as discriminatory only by embracing an especially radical version of an effects-based theory of discrimination. Specifically, the implicit argument proceeds in two steps. First, Jews or Israelis are much more likely than others to be offended by this kind of anti-Israel rhetoric — and so to feel unwelcome or uncomfortable in spaces where it is present. Second, when certain behavior (here, certain expression) has that kind of disproportionate impact on one group, engaging in that behavior amounts to discrimination against the disparately affected group — even absent any intent to single out its members. The legal term for this kind of discrimination theory is 'disparate-impact liability,' although that legal theory is usually seen only in domains such as employment and housing — not as a basis for speech regulation, let alone for mandating how peers should interact on college campuses. Advertisement And hence the rich irony: Not only is disparate impact widely recognized as a progressive idea, it is intensely embattled — thanks in no small part to President Trump. Just months ago, Trump issued a landmark executive Advertisement But somehow the anti-Harvard legal team, alone among federal officials tasked with enforcing civil rights, didn't get the memo. When it comes to people of color who are excluded from voting by ostensibly neutral requirements, the administration's position is that there can be no discrimination without proof of intent. Likewise for women excluded from public-safety jobs by physical capacity tests, or Black citizens who bear the brunt of police violence or decrepit public infrastructure. But if a college student's political activity disproportionately affects Jewish or Israeli peers — even just by causing offense or making them feel alienated — the administration deems that inherently discriminatory, no intent required. Could the administration claim instead that hostility toward Israel or Zionism is inherently antisemitic because many Jews see Zionism as part of their Jewish identity? Not really. Because Title VI does not cover religion, Jewishness is protected by the law only insofar as it constitutes a 'race' — a fact about one's ancestry. Under existing law, however, culturally salient practices or beliefs can play no role in the definition of racial categories. That is why judges have ruled that bans on dreadlocks and cornrows are not racially discriminatory, even if Black employees view these hairstyles as expressive of their racial identity. Advertisement The irony, once again, is that the contrary view — the culture-oriented conception of race that Trump's legal theory in the Harvard case would require the courts to embrace — is a well-known tenet of critical race theory, the 'woke' school that Trump and his allies have ridiculed for years. Maybe it is a mistake to scrutinize the legal analysis in what is evidently a political document. Yet if anyone still doubts the sham quality of this 'civil rights' action, there is no better proof than the lawyers' shameless reliance on ideas about discrimination that, when enlisted in the service of traditional civil rights concerns, the administration purports to find fundamentally un-American.
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Joe Biden Casually Drops Bombshell About Who's Still Seeking His Advice
Former President Joe Biden claimed that world leaders and U.S. lawmakers from both sides of the aisle are reaching out to him for advice and to ask him to remain active in politics amid the divisive second term of his successor, President Donald Trump. Biden is still involved in politics but now remains behind the scenes, he told the Society for Human Resource Management in San Diego on Wednesday after being asked how he's filling his 'newfound time' since leaving office. . 'I stayed engaged because I really cared about what I was doing. Many things I worked so damn hard [on], that I thought I had changed the country, are changing so rapidly,' Biden said, a reference to Trump's ongoing bid to gut most of his policy achievements. Biden later revealed, 'I'm getting calls. I'm not going to go into it, I can't. From a number of European leaders asking me to get engaged. I'm not, but I'm giving advice. Because things are different. You know, I often ask the question, if America doesn't lead the world, who can? Not a joke. Not because of power. Who could put it together? And mistakes, today, have significantly greater consequences than they did 50 years ago.' 'How can you just walk away?' Biden asked. 'You don't see me out there publicly doing a lot of this. But I'm also dealing with a lot of Democrats and Republican colleagues calling me, wanting to talk, not because they think I have the answer, just to bounce things off me. 'I'm not looking' for it, he added. 'They asked to see me, I see them.' Biden, who in May revealed he had been diagnosed with an aggressive form of prostate cancer, also said he's 'working like hell' to write a new, 500-page memoir documenting his presidency. 'They want me to focus just on the four years and talk about what happened and how it impacted on the world and/or if it did.' Top Trump Official's POTUS Praise Goes Viral For Cringiest Reasons Fox News Pundit Asks Most Sycophantic Question About Trump. It Does Not Go Well. Trump Asks DeSantis The Weirdest Question About Marjorie Taylor Greene, In Front Of Her BF
